|
Post by TheGlove on Jan 4, 2018 16:51:38 GMT -8
True that! Most have done zero research on pre and post O'Bama net laws... the use of an archaic law to impose nothing that wasn't already happening. One of the better fake news ploys. Not to take things sideways in an already sideways thread, but... For those of us who are uneducated, can you link up an article explaining this thought? I don't want to argue, just want someone to talk me off the ledge Nope.
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on Jan 4, 2018 17:22:19 GMT -8
Talk about an unnecessary waste of time. True that! Most have done zero research on pre and post O'Bama net laws... the use of an archaic law to impose nothing that wasn't already happening. One of the better fake news ploys. Oh, here we go ... is there anything about which you are not an expert? So, please, enlighten us as to how keeping an open internet is bad.
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Jan 4, 2018 21:23:08 GMT -8
Baseba1111 has 3 jobs, and a family. So put THAT in your pipe and smoke it!
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Jan 4, 2018 22:16:36 GMT -8
Baseba1111 has 3 jobs, and a family. So put THAT in your pipe and smoke it! Big deal. I got 3 families and no job.
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jan 4, 2018 22:47:07 GMT -8
Baseba1111 has 3 jobs, and a family. So put THAT in your pipe and smoke it! Big deal. I got 3 families and no job. Should've worn more "gloves"! 😉
|
|
|
Post by sagebrush on Jan 5, 2018 21:37:56 GMT -8
I got no freaking job and glad of it. Everyday is Saturday and I never care what time it is. Get to work chumps and support me. Least you could do for pay back when I fed your young raggedly asses. And, I know that you all do the least you can do.
|
|
|
Post by sagebrush on Jan 5, 2018 21:39:44 GMT -8
Did he "quit?" Only thing that has not been speculated is "me too."
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jan 8, 2018 13:47:19 GMT -8
True that! Most have done zero research on pre and post O'Bama net laws... the use of an archaic law to impose nothing that wasn't already happening. One of the better fake news ploys. Not to take things sideways in an already sideways thread, but... For those of us who are uneducated, can you link up an article explaining this thought? I don't want to argue, just want someone to talk me off the ledge Network Neutrality is stupid complicated, but, in a nutshell, the FCC was created on June 19, 1934. The FCC has some authority in regulating communications. The FCC was granted additional authority, pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, but, honestly, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 really did not change anything. Both Bush and Obama pushed network neutrality. Bush pushed it first, because he thought it helped promote business growth. Obama pushed, because, basically, he said that it promoted freedom. Trump opposed Obama's characterization, because it also promotes the government's ability to impose itself into the internet. A person supporting Trump's position would say that, basically, net neutrality is just a way for the federal government to get its meaty hooks into the internet, so that it can further regulate it in the future. Real freedom would be keeping the FCC and the federal government out of the internet altogether. At least, that is the argument. Historically, the people fighting net neutrality were copyright holders. Net neutrality allows pirating of copyrighted materials. If the internet is really neutral, it should not matter that you are stealing DVDs, games, or music or whether you are using it for more legitimate purposes. Starting on September 1, 2007, Comcast was found to be blocking and throttling pirating websites. The FCC attempted to step in and stop Comcast from doing so. However, Comcast fought and defeated the FCC in 2010 with the District of Columbia Circuit finding that the FCC had exceeded its authority under the 1934 Act, namely that peer-to-peer sharing was specifically outside of the FCC's purview. This effectively ended net neutrality the first time. (As it was unconstitutional ab initio, net neutrality never in fact existed. Most ISPs arguably honored net neutrality at the time, though.) Google and Verizon offered to broker a deal that the ISPs could live with in August 2010. Instead, the FCC issued Open Internet Order of December 21, 2010, which is largely just a reformulation of what the FCC had been trying to accomplish under Bush but actually written down and expanded a little. That Order lasted less than a month before Verizon sued to challenge its constitutionality. Three years later, on January 14, 2014, Verizon won and completely eliminated the Federal government's ability to impose net neutrality for a second time. (Again, as it was unconstitutional ab initio, net neutrality never in fact existed. Most ISPs arguably honored net neutrality at the time, though.) This vacuum lasted from January 14, 2014 through June 12, 2015, when net neutrality did not exist in any form. On April 13, 2015, the FCC passed the most recent net neutrality rule, which went into effect on June 12, 2015. These rules were subsequently challenged and found to pass constitutional muster on May 1, 2017. The FCC voted on December 14, 2017 to reverse the FCC's 2015 net neutrality regulations. Thus, net neutrality existed in an actual, meaningful, and constitutional way for all of seven months all during the term of Donald Trump. I believe that that is what baseba11 is referencing.
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Jan 8, 2018 14:11:13 GMT -8
Not to take things sideways in an already sideways thread, but... For those of us who are uneducated, can you link up an article explaining this thought? I don't want to argue, just want someone to talk me off the ledge Network Neutrality is stupid complicated, but, in a nutshell, the FCC was created on June 19, 1934. The FCC has some authority in regulating communications. The FCC was granted additional authority, pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, but, honestly, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 really did not change anything. Both Bush and Obama pushed network neutrality. Bush pushed it first, because he thought it helped promote business growth. Obama pushed, because, basically, he said that it promoted freedom. Trump opposed Obama's characterization, because it also promotes the government's ability to impose itself into the internet. A person supporting Trump's position would say that, basically, net neutrality is just a way for the federal government to get its meaty hooks into the internet, so that it can further regulate it in the future. Real freedom would be keeping the FCC and the federal government out of the internet altogether. At least, that is the argument. Historically, the people fighting net neutrality were copyright holders. Net neutrality allows pirating of copyrighted materials. If the internet is really neutral, it should not matter that you are stealing DVDs, games, or music or whether you are using it for more legitimate purposes. Starting on September 1, 2007, Comcast was found to be blocking and throttling pirating websites. The FCC attempted to step in and stop Comcast from doing so. However, Comcast fought and defeated the FCC in 2010 with the District of Columbia Circuit finding that the FCC had exceeded its authority under the 1934 Act, namely that peer-to-peer sharing was specifically outside of the FCC's purview. This effectively ended net neutrality the first time. (As it was unconstitutional ab initio, net neutrality never in fact existed. Most ISPs arguably honored net neutrality at the time, though.) Google and Verizon offered to broker a deal that the ISPs could live with in August 2010. Instead, the FCC issued Open Internet Order of December 21, 2010, which is largely just a reformulation of what the FCC had been trying to accomplish under Bush but actually written down and expanded a little. That Order lasted less than a month before Verizon sued to challenge its constitutionality. Three years later, on January 14, 2014, Verizon won and completely eliminated the Federal government's ability to impose net neutrality for a second time. (Again, as it was unconstitutional ab initio, net neutrality never in fact existed. Most ISPs arguably honored net neutrality at the time, though.) This vacuum lasted from January 14, 2014 through June 12, 2015, when net neutrality did not exist in any form. On April 13, 2015, the FCC passed the most recent net neutrality rule, which went into effect on June 12, 2015. These rules were subsequently challenged and found to pass constitutional muster on May 1, 2017. The FCC voted on December 14, 2017 to reverse the FCC's 2015 net neutrality regulations. Thus, net neutrality existed in an actual, meaningful, and constitutional way for all of seven months all during the term of Donald Trump. I believe that that is what baseba11 is referencing. This is pretty much spot on. Of course the issue for most people advocating net neutrality is protecting against the potential of abuse. it is the notion of being proactive and not reactive. at least it is for me it is. Net neutrality is not something that has a long history... but neither is the internet itself. and even shorter is the current history of the internet, where a majority of people are daily, consistent users. That has been us, for maybe about 10 or so years tops. Not just for commerce, (the dot com bubble, for example was way back in the late 90s!) but for every day entertainment or productivity. Twitter, Youtube, facebook, etc... all inventions of the past 10 years are really what drove the internet fully mainstream. Google and it's suite of products, like lists and calendars and all that. My concern is not that Comcast is going to want to charge me more to watch netflix. it is that comcast will not let me go to a site I want to visit period, because comcast deems it bad for business. Is this something that has been a problem before? no, not really. but that is not the point. the point is making sure it is never a problem. The issue with comcast is even more troubling. Comcast is vertically integrated in media. They want you watching cable and having cable subscriptions. They have incentive to make it harder for you to watch Netflix and Hulu. Their business interests can get in the way of your freedom. And because the internet is a utility, and has been governed and treated as such for years... we have no competitive choice. I cannot drop comcast right now if they piss me off. I literally have no other choice of provider where I live in South Salem. Not even centurylink with service my house. It is just like how most of us have no choice in who provides power, water or garbage service to their home. You get whomever services your area. There are lots of moving parts that command regulation and oversight, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by obf on Jan 8, 2018 14:23:21 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by obf on Jan 8, 2018 14:35:04 GMT -8
atownbeaver, I wonder if Comcast's real competition isn't Century Link or Netflix/Hulu, but Verizon and the other mobile carriers? My Verizon bill is already tremendous and I am not about to go without a cell phone (Oh how addicted to connection we have gotten , but that is a different discussion), but internet is literally the ONLY thing I use my Comcast subscription for. Mobile data has gotten fast enough, and adding unlimited data is at least financially viable that I could drop comcast completely and just go with a verizon hotspot for my house... If verizon really wanted to see if they could sell a LOT more unlimited (truly unlimited not the sorta unlimited plans) this would be the marketing the should pursue... Drop the big bad Net Neutrality Monsters Comcast and come to us! We have no skin in the entertainment game so we will never slow down your favorite streaming service!
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jan 8, 2018 16:24:36 GMT -8
Network Neutrality is stupid complicated, but, in a nutshell, the FCC was created on June 19, 1934. The FCC has some authority in regulating communications. The FCC was granted additional authority, pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, but, honestly, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 really did not change anything. Both Bush and Obama pushed network neutrality. Bush pushed it first, because he thought it helped promote business growth. Obama pushed, because, basically, he said that it promoted freedom. Trump opposed Obama's characterization, because it also promotes the government's ability to impose itself into the internet. A person supporting Trump's position would say that, basically, net neutrality is just a way for the federal government to get its meaty hooks into the internet, so that it can further regulate it in the future. Real freedom would be keeping the FCC and the federal government out of the internet altogether. At least, that is the argument. Historically, the people fighting net neutrality were copyright holders. Net neutrality allows pirating of copyrighted materials. If the internet is really neutral, it should not matter that you are stealing DVDs, games, or music or whether you are using it for more legitimate purposes. Starting on September 1, 2007, Comcast was found to be blocking and throttling pirating websites. The FCC attempted to step in and stop Comcast from doing so. However, Comcast fought and defeated the FCC in 2010 with the District of Columbia Circuit finding that the FCC had exceeded its authority under the 1934 Act, namely that peer-to-peer sharing was specifically outside of the FCC's purview. This effectively ended net neutrality the first time. (As it was unconstitutional ab initio, net neutrality never in fact existed. Most ISPs arguably honored net neutrality at the time, though.) Google and Verizon offered to broker a deal that the ISPs could live with in August 2010. Instead, the FCC issued Open Internet Order of December 21, 2010, which is largely just a reformulation of what the FCC had been trying to accomplish under Bush but actually written down and expanded a little. That Order lasted less than a month before Verizon sued to challenge its constitutionality. Three years later, on January 14, 2014, Verizon won and completely eliminated the Federal government's ability to impose net neutrality for a second time. (Again, as it was unconstitutional ab initio, net neutrality never in fact existed. Most ISPs arguably honored net neutrality at the time, though.) This vacuum lasted from January 14, 2014 through June 12, 2015, when net neutrality did not exist in any form. On April 13, 2015, the FCC passed the most recent net neutrality rule, which went into effect on June 12, 2015. These rules were subsequently challenged and found to pass constitutional muster on May 1, 2017. The FCC voted on December 14, 2017 to reverse the FCC's 2015 net neutrality regulations. Thus, net neutrality existed in an actual, meaningful, and constitutional way for all of seven months all during the term of Donald Trump. I believe that that is what baseba11 is referencing. This is pretty much spot on. Of course the issue for most people advocating net neutrality is protecting against the potential of abuse. it is the notion of being proactive and not reactive. at least it is for me it is. Net neutrality is not something that has a long history... but neither is the internet itself. and even shorter is the current history of the internet, where a majority of people are daily, consistent users. That has been us, for maybe about 10 or so years tops. Not just for commerce, (the dot com bubble, for example was way back in the late 90s!) but for every day entertainment or productivity. Twitter, Youtube, facebook, etc... all inventions of the past 10 years are really what drove the internet fully mainstream. Google and it's suite of products, like lists and calendars and all that. My concern is not that Comcast is going to want to charge me more to watch netflix. it is that comcast will not let me go to a site I want to visit period, because comcast deems it bad for business. Is this something that has been a problem before? no, not really. but that is not the point. the point is making sure it is never a problem. The issue with comcast is even more troubling. Comcast is vertically integrated in media. They want you watching cable and having cable subscriptions. They have incentive to make it harder for you to watch Netflix and Hulu. Their business interests can get in the way of your freedom. And because the internet is a utility, and has been governed and treated as such for years... we have no competitive choice. I cannot drop comcast right now if they piss me off. I literally have no other choice of provider where I live in South Salem. Not even centurylink with service my house. It is just like how most of us have no choice in who provides power, water or garbage service to their home. You get whomever services your area. There are lots of moving parts that command regulation and oversight, in my opinion. Regulation and oversight in my mind mean more expensive and inevitably leading to more government intrusion. I would rather there be an actual problem to fix rather than try and fix a currently unknown problem that we hallucinate is (conjure?) on the horizon. But that is just me talking. It is not illegal to create a monopoly, but certain actions that monopolies make can be illegal. If Comcast does what you are proposing, wouldn't that be a violation of the Sherman Act? A lot of America is still stuck with antiquated infrastructure. I think that obf is spot on. Eventually, the cell phone companies are going to be able to do everything that the cable companies do now better and for less. That is the future, in my mind. The Comcasts and Coxes of the world have to get what they get while they still can. I believe that their Day of Reckoning is coming.
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Jan 8, 2018 16:27:41 GMT -8
Network Neutrality is stupid complicated, but, in a nutshell, the FCC was created on June 19, 1934. The FCC has some authority in regulating communications. The FCC was granted additional authority, pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, but, honestly, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 really did not change anything. Both Bush and Obama pushed network neutrality. Bush pushed it first, because he thought it helped promote business growth. Obama pushed, because, basically, he said that it promoted freedom. Trump opposed Obama's characterization, because it also promotes the government's ability to impose itself into the internet. A person supporting Trump's position would say that, basically, net neutrality is just a way for the federal government to get its meaty hooks into the internet, so that it can further regulate it in the future. Real freedom would be keeping the FCC and the federal government out of the internet altogether. At least, that is the argument. Historically, the people fighting net neutrality were copyright holders. Net neutrality allows pirating of copyrighted materials. If the internet is really neutral, it should not matter that you are stealing DVDs, games, or music or whether you are using it for more legitimate purposes. Starting on September 1, 2007, Comcast was found to be blocking and throttling pirating websites. The FCC attempted to step in and stop Comcast from doing so. However, Comcast fought and defeated the FCC in 2010 with the District of Columbia Circuit finding that the FCC had exceeded its authority under the 1934 Act, namely that peer-to-peer sharing was specifically outside of the FCC's purview. This effectively ended net neutrality the first time. (As it was unconstitutional ab initio, net neutrality never in fact existed. Most ISPs arguably honored net neutrality at the time, though.) Google and Verizon offered to broker a deal that the ISPs could live with in August 2010. Instead, the FCC issued Open Internet Order of December 21, 2010, which is largely just a reformulation of what the FCC had been trying to accomplish under Bush but actually written down and expanded a little. That Order lasted less than a month before Verizon sued to challenge its constitutionality. Three years later, on January 14, 2014, Verizon won and completely eliminated the Federal government's ability to impose net neutrality for a second time. (Again, as it was unconstitutional ab initio, net neutrality never in fact existed. Most ISPs arguably honored net neutrality at the time, though.) This vacuum lasted from January 14, 2014 through June 12, 2015, when net neutrality did not exist in any form. On April 13, 2015, the FCC passed the most recent net neutrality rule, which went into effect on June 12, 2015. These rules were subsequently challenged and found to pass constitutional muster on May 1, 2017. The FCC voted on December 14, 2017 to reverse the FCC's 2015 net neutrality regulations. Thus, net neutrality existed in an actual, meaningful, and constitutional way for all of seven months all during the term of Donald Trump. I believe that that is what baseba11 is referencing. This is pretty much spot on. Of course the issue for most people advocating net neutrality is protecting against the potential of abuse. it is the notion of being proactive and not reactive. at least it is for me it is. Net neutrality is not something that has a long history... but neither is the internet itself. and even shorter is the current history of the internet, where a majority of people are daily, consistent users. That has been us, for maybe about 10 or so years tops. Not just for commerce, (the dot com bubble, for example was way back in the late 90s!) but for every day entertainment or productivity. Twitter, Youtube, facebook, etc... all inventions of the past 10 years are really what drove the internet fully mainstream. Google and it's suite of products, like lists and calendars and all that. My concern is not that Comcast is going to want to charge me more to watch netflix. it is that comcast will not let me go to a site I want to visit period, because comcast deems it bad for business. Is this something that has been a problem before? no, not really. but that is not the point. the point is making sure it is never a problem. The issue with comcast is even more troubling. Comcast is vertically integrated in media. They want you watching cable and having cable subscriptions. They have incentive to make it harder for you to watch Netflix and Hulu. Their business interests can get in the way of your freedom. And because the internet is a utility, and has been governed and treated as such for years... we have no competitive choice. I cannot drop comcast right now if they piss me off. I literally have no other choice of provider where I live in South Salem. Not even centurylink with service my house. It is just like how most of us have no choice in who provides power, water or garbage service to their home. You get whomever services your area. There are lots of moving parts that command regulation and oversight, in my opinion. All someone needs to do is look at Portugal for an example of what can happen without net neutrality protections. Some people may not have a problem with this model, but I do. I pay for a data connection, what I do with that data connection is my business, so long as it is not illegal enterprise.
|
|
beaver94
Sophomore
Posts: 1,572
Member is Online
|
Post by beaver94 on Jan 8, 2018 16:44:48 GMT -8
This is pretty much spot on. Of course the issue for most people advocating net neutrality is protecting against the potential of abuse. it is the notion of being proactive and not reactive. at least it is for me it is. Net neutrality is not something that has a long history... but neither is the internet itself. and even shorter is the current history of the internet, where a majority of people are daily, consistent users. That has been us, for maybe about 10 or so years tops. Not just for commerce, (the dot com bubble, for example was way back in the late 90s!) but for every day entertainment or productivity. Twitter, Youtube, facebook, etc... all inventions of the past 10 years are really what drove the internet fully mainstream. Google and it's suite of products, like lists and calendars and all that. My concern is not that Comcast is going to want to charge me more to watch netflix. it is that comcast will not let me go to a site I want to visit period, because comcast deems it bad for business. Is this something that has been a problem before? no, not really. but that is not the point. the point is making sure it is never a problem. The issue with comcast is even more troubling. Comcast is vertically integrated in media. They want you watching cable and having cable subscriptions. They have incentive to make it harder for you to watch Netflix and Hulu. Their business interests can get in the way of your freedom. And because the internet is a utility, and has been governed and treated as such for years... we have no competitive choice. I cannot drop comcast right now if they piss me off. I literally have no other choice of provider where I live in South Salem. Not even centurylink with service my house. It is just like how most of us have no choice in who provides power, water or garbage service to their home. You get whomever services your area. There are lots of moving parts that command regulation and oversight, in my opinion. All someone needs to do is look at Portugal for an example of what can happen without net neutrality protections. Some people may not have a problem with this model, but I do. I pay for a data connection, what I do with that data connection is my business, so long as it is not illegal enterprise. Portugal is part of the EU and is covered under the net neutrality rules published last year.
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jan 8, 2018 16:53:28 GMT -8
This is pretty much spot on. Of course the issue for most people advocating net neutrality is protecting against the potential of abuse. it is the notion of being proactive and not reactive. at least it is for me it is. Net neutrality is not something that has a long history... but neither is the internet itself. and even shorter is the current history of the internet, where a majority of people are daily, consistent users. That has been us, for maybe about 10 or so years tops. Not just for commerce, (the dot com bubble, for example was way back in the late 90s!) but for every day entertainment or productivity. Twitter, Youtube, facebook, etc... all inventions of the past 10 years are really what drove the internet fully mainstream. Google and it's suite of products, like lists and calendars and all that. My concern is not that Comcast is going to want to charge me more to watch netflix. it is that comcast will not let me go to a site I want to visit period, because comcast deems it bad for business. Is this something that has been a problem before? no, not really. but that is not the point. the point is making sure it is never a problem. The issue with comcast is even more troubling. Comcast is vertically integrated in media. They want you watching cable and having cable subscriptions. They have incentive to make it harder for you to watch Netflix and Hulu. Their business interests can get in the way of your freedom. And because the internet is a utility, and has been governed and treated as such for years... we have no competitive choice. I cannot drop comcast right now if they piss me off. I literally have no other choice of provider where I live in South Salem. Not even centurylink with service my house. It is just like how most of us have no choice in who provides power, water or garbage service to their home. You get whomever services your area. There are lots of moving parts that command regulation and oversight, in my opinion. All someone needs to do is look at Portugal for an example of what can happen without net neutrality protections. Some people may not have a problem with this model, but I do. I pay for a data connection, what I do with that data connection is my business, so long as it is not illegal enterprise. For all of 7 months of so called 'protection'... did you have an issue beforehand? I'm guessing not, and there is no reason to think much will change. State regulations have much more impact than what any FCC action has. Look into it... there are massive amount of 'protections' for consumers state by state. It is much ado about what could be, but wasn't beforehand. Comparing the European market/Portugal to our situation is so off base, on so many levels, it is not worth mentioning. You might as well be bitching about the original premise that the internet was to be free for all to use!!
|
|